Dental implants of numerous and varying design have been around for many years. These implants seek to restore natural dental function. The human tooth and its attachment to the jaw, however, is a complex system, not easily capable of replication. Prior art implants were generally directly attached to the bone. The implant itself would be made of metal and/or ceramic. The prior art implants essentially did not move along any axes.
An implant can become overloaded during the patient's use and it will become loose through bone loss or in more extreme cases, break. Even upon removal of the forces, the implant remains loose and is usually eventually lost.
In an effort to produce long lasting implants, reduce breakage and prosthetic failure, the prior art contains examples of multiple implants, varying orientation of implants, varying diameter and lengths of implants, implant protected occlusion, varying surface areas, occlusal table width, varying loading schedules, varying implant locations, splinting, patient selection, soft tissue considerations, etc. See, for example: U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,453,007 to Wagher; 5,040,982 to Stefan-Dogar; 5,468,150 to Brammann; 4,657,510 to Gittleman; 5,503,558 to Clokie; 4,259,072 to Hirabayashi et al.; 4,568,285 to Chiaramonte et al.; 4,938,693 to Bulakiev; 4,609,354 to Koch; 5,425,639 to Anders; 5,362,235 to Daftary; "Clinical And Statistical Analysis Of A Comprehensive Implant Reconstructive Practice: by Richard A. Borgner, DDS Dental Economics, October 1995, p. 96; "Survival Rates of Hemisected Teeth: An Attempt to Compare them with Survival Rates of Alloplastic Implants" by Buhler, Hans, Endodontics/Peridontics Review, Fall 1996; "Early Bone Loss Etiology And its Effect on Treatment Planning" by Carl E. Misch, DDS, MDS, Dentistry Today, June 1996, pp. 44-51; "From Subperiosteal to Osseointegration: An Unusual Demand Met by an Unusual Approach" by Gary H. Ganz, DDS, PC, Dentistry Today, October 1995, pp.49-51; "Controlling Forces on Dental Implants" by Dr. Paul Homoly, Dentistry Today, October 1995, pp. 46-47; "Osseointegrated Implants With an Intramobile Element in the Treatment of Edentulous Jaws" by Alan F. Shernoff, DDS et al., Compend Contin Educ Dent, Vol. XII, No. 6, pp. 394-402; Implant-Protected Occlusion" by Carl E. Misch, DDS, MDS and Martha W. Bidez, PhD, PP&A, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 25-29; "Interrelations of Soft and Hard Tissues for Osseointegrated Implants" by Oded Bahat, BDS, MSD, Compendium, December 1996, Vol. 17, No. 12 pp. 1161-1167; "Diagnosis and Evaluation of Complications and Failures Associated With Osseointegrated Implants" by Harold S. Baumgarten, DMD and Gerald J. Chiche, DDS, Compendium, August 1995, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 814-823; "Techniques for Ideal Implant Placement in the Mandibular First Molar Position" by Louis F. Clarizio, DDS, Compendium, August 1995, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 806-813; and "Implant-Protected Occlusion: A Biomechanical Rationale" by Carl F. Misch, DDS, MDS and Martha Warren Bidez, PhD, Compendium, November 1994, Vol. 15, No. 11, pp. 1330-1343. Many of these considerations and considerable failure of prior art prostheses is due to a lack of replicating the ability of a natural tooth to move along three axes.
The prior art has therefore resulted in implants that are often directly attached to the bone and that cannot flex with the bone. Loads are, therefore, concentrated at the crestal bone. This concentration of stress on the bone results in the physiological phenomenon known as resorption. The density and mass of the crestal bone decreases, eroding support for the implant. The final result is loss of the implant due to lack of support.